Published 6:00 pm, Sunday, October 30, 2005

In reality, all too many times activist judges and courts have taken matters in their own hands to impose their own views of the world on the majority. That has been the case with gay marriage nationally, and could eventually be the case here unless Texans take matters in their own hands and pass Proposition 2, one of nine Texas constitutional amendments on the ballot in the Nov. 8 election.

The fact is that a majority of Texans consistently have opposed same-sex marriage. A 2003 Texas poll revealed that 63 percent of those Texans surveyed supported a prohibition against gay marriage. In fact, the Legislature in 2003 passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the state from recognizing same-sex marriages and civil unions from other states.

But too many times, courts, whether the U.S. Supreme Court or lower courts, have intervened to overturn those silly things called laws that were supported by an overwhelming majority of the people. That was the case with gay marriage in Massachusetts, where that state's Supreme Court struck down a Defense of Marriage law passed by the Legislature when the court read new meaning into the state's constitution.

The wording of the proposition is simple enough. It states that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including those from other states.

Some opponents, either out of ignorance or cynicism, have tried to argue the amendment could threaten the status of common law marriages. That's simply not true; the Legislature and its legal analysts would never have let a measure through that would threaten such a fundamental institution. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Friday knocked that argument down in a letter sent to the legislative sponsors of the amendment, one of whom was Sen. Todd Staples, R-Palestine. He wrote, "In my legal judgment as Attorney General of the State of Texas, this argument is wholly without merit. Given the plain text of Proposition 2 and the legislative intent, the claim that the proposition could somehow be used to invalidate traditional marriage in Texas is, as a legal matter, completely baseless."

There are a number of reasons to pass the amendment. Traditional marriage already is in enough trouble without allowing it to be redefined into meaninglessness. Same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 1998, for example, and the data since then suggests that it contributed to an acceleration in the decline of traditional marriage. Same-sex marriage would cut all marriage adrift from its traditional moorings in law and culture and lead to its eventual demise.

And while there are many homosexuals who simply want society's blessings on their unions, activists see same-sex marriage as a way to further legitimize homosexual relations and criminalize those who disagree with them. Last year, Canada's Parliament passed a law that effectively criminalized any speech or writings that are critical of homosexuality or deemed to be "homophobic." Ultimately, this fight is not about broadening marriage, but rather is another front in the culture wars.

A majority of Texans may someday decide that same-sex marriage is appropriate. But until that time, a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that Texans themselves - not activist judges - decide what marriage is or isn't.